Create ticket

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only covers input constraints (mutual exclusivity, queue_name restriction) but does not mention side effects, permissions, idempotency, or return values. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and efficiently conveys all essential constraints without extraneous words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description adequately covers input constraints for a tool with 10 parameters and conditional groups. However, it lacks information about return values, error handling, and omits any mention of is_public or use_passed_originator_as_responder. No output schema is provided, leaving the agent with gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 70% schema coverage, the description adds significant value by clearly defining the three mutual exclusive parameter paths and the restriction on queue_name. It groups related parameters semantically, which is not evident from the schema alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Create a support ticket' and specifies the exact three ways to provide content (subject+content, template+data, or intervention+data+uid). This distinguishes it from siblings like query_tickets or respond_to_ticket.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly instructs to provide EXACTLY ONE of three parameter groups and notes when queue_name is not allowed. However, it does not provide high-level guidance on when to use this tool versus others, such as for updating vs. creating.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.